Microsoft comes full circle

Sometime ago back in the 90s, Microsoft decided that 'Windows everywhere' was a good idea, and Win CE proceeded to implement the desktop, complete with start menu, tiny controls and menus that needed a stylus, and all other desktop metaphors, on mobile devices. It was a disaster (in hindsight) and MS lost the 10 year head-start they had on everyone in the mobile space.

Now, they have apparently decided the exact opposite is needed - forcing a phone interface onto a desktop, by making Windows 8 for all intents and purposes a touch required OS, with non touch devices a distant 2nd class citizen. Yes, its 2012 and tablets are the rage, but the desktop is not going anywhere, there are hundreds of millions of users who won't have a touch enabled pc for a long time, if ever.

Now, they have apparently decided the exact opposite is needed - forcing a phone interface onto a desktop, by making Windows 8 for all intents and purposes a touch required OS, with non touch devices a distant 2nd class citizen.

I think you need to justify this a bit. Anything you can do with touch on a Win8 app you can do with mouse or keyboardm, and from reading the Metro guides keyboard suppport will actually be better and more consistent in Win8 than Win7.

Some of the other concept stuff (like the lock screen) is something we should have had in Windows a long time ago.

My personal view is Microsoft is trying to engineer a platform that scales out to more input mechanisms than just mouse, without screwing up mouse support. So keyboard only is works, mouse/keyboard works, TV remote (as far as I can tell from the dev docks) works, touch works. Windows 9 will probably add Kinect as another input mechanism, thus satisying the sandwich input guys, but there's no way out of the fact that Win32 apps (and website apps) are badly supported for touch.

As to all the inevitable comments that the hit areas are way too big in Metro for touch, may I point out in advance that most selection controls in Metro support zoom? Including the Start page?

I agree that Metro on traditional PCs, especially large-screen PCs, isn't ideal (several preliminary reviews of the W8 CP, which are extremely positive wrt Metro, point out not only the jarring aspect of how W8's smooshes together two UIs, but also how Metro's enforced philosophy of maximization isn't exactly a comfortable or great fit for large screens), and the transition is going to be, well, transitional, and at least a bit rocky.

That said, to my mind the big difference between the W8 strategy and the Pocket PC/WinCE approach - trying to shoehorn traditional Windows UI on phones and tablets - is that Metro can function as a fancy Start menu for traditional PCs, a place for launching and notifications, and generally stay out of the way if you have little interest in it. (I also think touch-first Metro apps have a good deal more cross-device potential than the Pocket PC/WinCE approach, which was misguided and just plain awful.)

I don't know if there's a solution to the jarring aspect of putting two very different UIs together, though. It's just jarring.

Installed the consumer preview yesterday. It's an OS with dissociative identity disorder. You can bag Lion all you want for introducing elements of iOS into the desktop OS. Some work great like the trackpad gestures, others like the LaunchPad are worthless.

Windows 8 however... Here it is in a nutshell.

Metro: "Hi, I'm a sexy new, well thought out interface. I don't work so well with a mouse & keyboard, but try me out. Oh, wait, nooooo, don't click there!!! Noooooo!!!!!"* Legacy UI rears its ugly head * Legacy UI: Muhahahaha! Not only do I still live it is *I* who is pulling the strings behind the curtains. Metro: No! Come back to me!! Legacy UI: No! Click Word. You're mine! Mine!

I don't know if there's a solution to the jarring aspect of putting two very different UIs together, though. It's just jarring.

When you look at Win8, and the Metro and Win32 subsystems that interact with all the grace and subtlety of articulated lorries mating, you have to assume there must be a better way, right?

Except I can't think of one that wouldn't be a bear to back compat. Launching Win32 apps maximised without title bar in a Metro space might do it, then at least you're spared the double-declutch of taskbar/ metro applist, but would this work for the fruitier apps out there?

When you look at Win8, and the Metro and Win32 subsystems that interact with all the grace and subtlety of articulated lorries mating, you have to assume there must be a better way, right?

Oh, no, not at all. (One thing Microsoft could, and perhaps will, do is offer a minimal, Metro-ish theme for traditional Windows for the final release, but that's just - literally - window dressing. The two UXes will still be very different.) This is an inevitable consequence of the extremely ambitious touch-first strategy: a long, inevitably awkward transition period.

Apple went through it in the OS 9 → OS X transition with Classic, and I can report it wasn't particularly fun. I expect the traditional Windows → Metro transition to be more jarring (if less disruptive - at the moment Metro can be mostly ignored if you wish) and as long or longer, given the sheer amount of change users and developers will have to embrace.

Installed the consumer preview yesterday. It's an OS with dissociative identity disorder. You can bag Lion all you want for introducing elements of iOS into the desktop OS. Some work great like the trackpad gestures, others like the LaunchPad are worthless.

Windows 8 however... Here it is in a nutshell.

Metro: "Hi, I'm a sexy new, well thought out interface. I don't work so well with a mouse & keyboard, but try me out. Oh, wait, nooooo, don't click there!!! Noooooo!!!!!"* Legacy UI rears its ugly head * Legacy UI: Muhahahaha! Not only do I still live it is *I* who is pulling the strings behind the curtains. Metro: No! Come back to me!! Legacy UI: No! Click Word. You're mine! Mine!

What a fucking mess.

What part of if you don't NEED to use the Legacy UI you don't have to don't you understand?

"I’ve been using Windows 8 for about a week on a prototype Samsung tablet. And I have got to tell you, I’m excited.

For two reasons. First, because Windows 8 works fluidly and briskly on touch screens; it’s a natural fit. And second, it attains that success through a design that’s all Microsoft’s own. This business of the tiles is not at all what Apple designed for iOS, or that Google copied in Android."

I'm also quite frankly enjoying the cognitive dissonance going on with Apple fans.

On the one hand, "lol the iPad is eating into Microsofts enterprise business, Post PC baby!!"

On the other hand, "waaah, I need to do real work on my PC, I can't do that with Metro"

I'm not sure that's cognitive dissonance, really. A lot of Apple fans seem to be very pro-Metro (which is understandable, as Metro is thoughtful and well-designed). What they dislike is 95 - Win 7.

The iPad in the Enterprisde means less regular Windows. Metro means less regular Windows. The complaint isn't that Metro can't get real work done; it's that getting real work done throws you into teh ugly.

I'm not sure that's cognitive dissonance, really. A lot of Apple fans seem to be very pro-Metro (which is understandable, as Metro is thoughtful and well-designed). What they dislike is 95 - Win 7.

The iPad in the Enterprisde means less regular Windows. Metro means less regular Windows. The complaint isn't that Metro can't get real work done; it's that getting real work done throws you into teh ugly.

So let me see if I get this straight.

Are you saying that people would rather use the iPad to get their work done, than use the Windows desktop?

I'm not sure that's cognitive dissonance, really. A lot of Apple fans seem to be very pro-Metro (which is understandable, as Metro is thoughtful and well-designed). What they dislike is 95 - Win 7.

The iPad in the Enterprisde means less regular Windows. Metro means less regular Windows. The complaint isn't that Metro can't get real work done; it's that getting real work done throws you into teh ugly.

So let me see if I get this straight.

Are you saying that people would rather use the iPad to get their work done, than use the Windows desktop?

Baffling.

No, I am saying many Apple fans just don't particularly like traditional Windows. Things that hasten the demise of traditional Windows = good. Metro is a completely different ballgame.

I'm not sure that's cognitive dissonance, really. A lot of Apple fans seem to be very pro-Metro (which is understandable, as Metro is thoughtful and well-designed). What they dislike is 95 - Win 7.

We spent the better part of a couple of decades trying to tell people we actually disliked Windows, and weren't just pretending to because we were Apple partisans. Metro is really good, and its UI is not derivative of Apple's. (Though some other aspects of Microsoft's new approach are clearly derivative -- aggressive sandboxing, the app store model, etc.)

My main concern about Metro, really, is that Microsoft won't take it far enough -- that the fact that the traditional desktop is still available will give them an out, and they won't do all the work they'd otherwise have to do to make it a fully self-contained environment. We're already seeing this with their failure to port Office to Metro for its initial ARM release. Hopefully they're only doing this because they're pressed for time, and will rectify it as soon as they possibly can.

YoungHov wrote:

Are you saying that people would rather use the iPad to get their work done, than use the Windows desktop?

Baffling.

The truth is, traditional desktop interfaces have never been a very good fit for mainstream users. I know the average Ars posters has trouble accepting this, but the median user is often uncomfortable with file system navigation, window management, application installation, and a wide variety of other "basic" tasks. Look at Metro in this light, and nearly every decision Microsoft has made suddenly makes sense.

Hopefully they're only doing this because they're pressed for time, and will rectify it as soon as they possibly can.

I think it's a combo of having to support Win7/Vista for this release and Metro not having the sort of features Office needs. That beastie needs to do OLE, it needs to run VBA apps, to support binary plugins, and Metro just doesn't have that kind of stuff yet.

Hopefully they're only doing this because they're pressed for time, and will rectify it as soon as they possibly can.

I think it's a combo of having to support Win7/Vista for this release and Metro not having the sort of features Office needs. That beastie needs to do OLE, it needs to run VBA apps, to support binary plugins, and Metro just doesn't have that kind of stuff yet.

Microsoft cheats heavily with Metro IE using tons of stuff not available to third parties, they can cheat with Office.

Aren't those capabilities just available to whatever you've set as your default browser?

Not if publicly available information is to be believed -- I touched upon it in another thread, but third parties are sandboxed off and can't write JIT compilers, for example. Metro IE, on the other hand, is as privileged as Desktop IE. See this Mozilla wiki article for more information.

edit: ah, I see this is now public. Yes, this has been cooking for a bit. Still, it proves that Microsoft can cheat and grant special exceptions.

Aren't those capabilities just available to whatever you've set as your default browser?

Not if publicly available information is to be believed -- I touched upon it in another thread, but third parties are sandboxed off and can't write JIT compilers, for example. Metro IE, on the other hand, is as privileged as Desktop IE. See this Mozilla wiki article for more information.

And since when is this a released product?

Seriously jumping up and down saying its unfair before the product is done?

I mean I know the Microsoft hatred is high, especially around Mozilla, but its a fucking BETA running a BETA version of IE10.

In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, the browser that the user sets as the "default" for handling web pages and associated protocols may be designed to access both the Metro style experience as well as the traditional desktop experience. This type of browser is called a "Metro style enabled desktop browser". This guide describes how to create such a browser.

If you had the slightest idea what a browser needs to do you'd realize that it's impossible to write one with the restrictions Metro normally has. That's why Microsoft's made a special exception for browsers. (I've known that this has been coming for a while, so it's good to see this being made public now.)

In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, the browser that the user sets as the "default" for handling web pages and associated protocols may be designed to access both the Metro style experience as well as the traditional desktop experience. This type of browser is called a "Metro style enabled desktop browser". This guide describes how to create such a browser.

Yeah, I didn't know this was public now.

It doesn't really detract from my general point that Microsoft's willing to make exceptions.

Microsoft could have introduced Metro into the regular Windows desktop, allowed WinRT apps to run side by side (and I mean like normal overlapped windows) with Win32, made the Metro start menu an option, and everything would be fine. Instead we have the forced switching between 2 worlds, hideous Metro apps that take over my entire screen with big fat buttons and tons of wasted space, and no clear idea or design behind what belongs where. Some settings are in Metro, some are in Control Panel, there is absolutely no consistency.

The result is a lot of real improvements (WinRT, being faster and lighter, the Store) don't really matter because the overall experience is so annoying. I have not seen a single usability study from MS about Metro on desktop (like they normally do for any UI). Every single demo and presentation has been done using a tablet/touchscreen. They took a principle - 'everything must be built for touch and a single app model' and forced everything else into that, and then claim it works for all scenarios.

Even Vista/Ribbon didn't get anywhere near this level of vitriol and backlash. I would like Sinofsky to at least address the issue.

Yeah, if you read the doc it seems to have been implemented as a fairly generic "dual mode app" capability - there's nothing really inherently browser-specific about it - just only exposed to the default browser as a matter of policy. I would imagine they'd like to limit the exposure of this feature, otherwise every desktop app would want to be dual-mode (e.g. if they allowed multiple browsers to simultaneously work as dual-mode, it could lead to a situation where every desktop app claimed to be a "browser").

If you had the slightest idea what a browser needs to do you'd realize that it's impossible to write one with the restrictions Metro normally has. That's why Microsoft's made a special exception for browsers. (I've known that this has been coming for a while, so it's good to see this being made public now.)

In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, the browser that the user sets as the "default" for handling web pages and associated protocols may be designed to access both the Metro style experience as well as the traditional desktop experience. This type of browser is called a "Metro style enabled desktop browser". This guide describes how to create such a browser.

Yeah, I didn't know this was public now.

It doesn't really detract from my general point that Microsoft's willing to make exceptions.

So you don't know what Microsoft was planning, but you know exactly what a browser needs to do.

Yeah, if you read the doc it seems to have been implemented as a fairly generic "dual mode app" capability - there's nothing really inherently browser-specific about it - just only exposed to the default browser as a matter of policy. I would imagine they'd like to limit the exposure of this feature, otherwise every desktop app would want to be dual-mode (e.g. if they allowed multiple browsers to simultaneously work as dual-mode, it could lead to a situation where every desktop app claimed to be a "browser").

Right, they could let Office be a dual-mode app too. In fact, they could in theory open up dual-mode capabilities to all desktop apps. I'm sure some people would like a Metro version of Steam, for instance.

I am looking at my start menu and I have 26 shortcuts under Visual Studio 2010. Does that means when I install it I will have 26 big metro style icon occupying the entire screen?

Quote:

Microsoft could have introduced Metro into the regular Windows desktop, allowed WinRT apps to run side by side (and I mean like normal overlapped windows) with Win32, made the Metro start menu an option, and everything would be fine.

Exactly what I think. I think Metro is not really suitable for large screen.

Metro is an abortion on a large screen. I tried it on an eSata drive, on my desktop at home and dropped it after a few days. The context switching was maddening, as was the sparse functionality access unless you dug for the Control Panel. On the Series 7 Slate I have though, it's OK. I just wish there was a decent 4:3 screen slate available, 16:9 screens suck for work tablets.

When you look at Win8, and the Metro and Win32 subsystems that interact with all the grace and subtlety of articulated lorries mating, you have to assume there must be a better way, right?

Oh, no, not at all. (One thing Microsoft could, and perhaps will, do is offer a minimal, Metro-ish theme for traditional Windows for the final release, but that's just - literally - window dressing. The two UXes will still be very different.) This is an inevitable consequence of the extremely ambitious touch-first strategy: a long, inevitably awkward transition period.

Apple went through it in the OS 9 → OS X transition with Classic, and I can report it wasn't particularly fun. I expect the traditional Windows → Metro transition to be more jarring (if less disruptive - at the moment Metro can be mostly ignored if you wish) and as long or longer, given the sheer amount of change users and developers will have to embrace.

I'm just wondering how this is in any way worse than the DOS->Windows 3.1 transition. Most of us had lots of DOS applications that we depended on and continued to use well in the Windows95 days. Going from mouse/keyboard to keyboard only over and over can be made to sound horrible (much like some are attempting to expand the differences between Metro and Win32 to ridiculous levels), but the truth of the matter is that it really wasn't that big a deal, and if we had been deprived of our DOS applications to use Windows, most would never have used Windows. I know that some computer users have become accustomed to throwing away hardware and software on a regular basis because the maker of their computer know what they need better than they do. It's just that for the vast majority, that does not make any sense.

From the previews (note: I haven't actually tried it yet), I can't say that I'm terribly interested in Windows 8 for desktop use. I'm a huge fan of Windows 7 (and hey, I thought Vista was pretty decent too), but Metro as a desktop UI really doesn't appeal to me.

I acknowledge that as a programmer with 27" + 20" monitors (and frequently work with 4+ windows visible), I'm in the minority as to typical usage. Maybe the Metro UI will work well for the average user; if so, good for them.

Metro is an abortion on a large screen. I tried it on an eSata drive, on my desktop at home and dropped it after a few days. The context switching was maddening, as was the sparse functionality access unless you dug for the Control Panel. On the Series 7 Slate I have though, it's OK. I just wish there was a decent 4:3 screen slate available, 16:9 screens suck for work tablets.

Installed the consumer preview yesterday. It's an OS with dissociative identity disorder. You can bag Lion all you want for introducing elements of iOS into the desktop OS. Some work great like the trackpad gestures, others like the LaunchPad are worthless.

Windows 8 however... Here it is in a nutshell.

Metro: "Hi, I'm a sexy new, well thought out interface. I don't work so well with a mouse & keyboard, but try me out. Oh, wait, nooooo, don't click there!!! Noooooo!!!!!"* Legacy UI rears its ugly head * Legacy UI: Muhahahaha! Not only do I still live it is *I* who is pulling the strings behind the curtains. Metro: No! Come back to me!! Legacy UI: No! Click Word. You're mine! Mine!

Metro is an abortion on a large screen. I tried it on an eSata drive, on my desktop at home and dropped it after a few days. The context switching was maddening, as was the sparse functionality access unless you dug for the Control Panel. On the Series 7 Slate I have though, it's OK. I just wish there was a decent 4:3 screen slate available, 16:9 screens suck for work tablets.

How have you tried it for a few days? It just came out yesterday.

Presumably he's talking about the developer evaluation version that has been out since September 2011?

I've had it for two days now, and it is not growing on me at all. It's a half baked mess of obfuscation. I am thinking of my users here. I am an admin. I can deal with it. But my users will be frustrated. It runs too counter to UI paradigms of the past, with no payoff in return.

No Start menuStart Screen covers the entire desktopJarring context switchTiles that shift around uncontrollably when you try to organize themLauncher icons that are a jumbled mess when you install complex applicationsSandboxed crappy applets that can't pass data to each otherNo easy access to system utilities unless you go into the old UI

It's an inconsistent mess.

On my slate, it's better, but even on that, the integration between the Desktop and Metro is just tacked on.

It's unclear what you mean by this. Apps can pass data to and from each other. They just have to use the mechanism provided by the OS. This is precisely the same as how things worked before (with things like copy/paste) except that now there are better contracts defined so that you can do things like browse photos, even if those photos are from facebook (or many other sharing sources).

The consumer preview significantly amplifies my concerns that Microsoft has no serious plans to make Metro self-contained in Windows 8. First thing I wanted to do after installing was switch to the correct display resolution... which still requires jumping back to to the traditional control panel. Power settings? Not available in Metro. Network settings? Not available in Metro. Metro at this point isn't actually a new UI for Windows, it's just a new environment that hosts a few apps. For those of us who like Metro, but have never particularly liked the traditional Windows environment, this is a major disappointment. And if this carries through in the final release, this also means the fear that Windows 8 will bring much of the complexity of the desktop to tablet users is very real.